Time Magazine article

[Trek420]

I've been amused/perplexed by the magazines that have some high calorie dessert on the cover and a banner article headline about loosing weight.

That's because "moderate exercise, fit into your daily routine such as walking or biking to work, taking the stairs instead of the escalator, gardening instead of watching TV, walking or running with your dog instead of doing the treadmill at a gym or buying a Thighmaster for only 12 easy payments of $9.99, and eating food that's made from real food in moderation unless it's chocolate" ...... doesn't have an advertising agency, budget, lobby or infomercial.

It has us doing it and looking faaaaabulous.

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

This reminds me of the other sensationalized article recently stating that organic produce is no more nutritious than non-organic produce. although that's 'debatable'- even if it were true and they were both equally 'nutritious' in terms of having the same nutrients- they are conveniently forgetting about the fact that organic produce is HEALTHIER to eat because it is not coated with pesticide residue.

I hate it when they do a little writer's 'twist' of the facts in order to get people to buy the publication.

[emily_in_nc]

This reminds me of the other sensationalized article recently stating that organic produce is no more nutritious than non-organic produce. although that's 'debatable'- even if it were true and they were both equally 'nutritious' in terms of having the same nutrients- they are conveniently forgetting about the fact that organic produce is HEALTHIER to eat because it is not coated with pesticide residue.

That bugged the h*ll out of me too, Lisa! I don't eat organic produce b/c it's more "nutritious". I eat it because it's not grown with possibly harmful pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or fungicides; and to support small, local farms and small-scale growers who are some of the best stewards of our environment around. Not to mention that organic produce often tastes better because it's often not picked as early to be processed and shipped cross-country and has more time to ripen naturally in the field or on the vine.

[Trek420]

..... I don't eat organic produce b/c it's more "nutritious". I eat it because it's not grown with possibly harmful pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or fungicides

Bingo. Traditional fertilizers are made from patrol based products. One way to reduce dependance on oil is to eat organic. More important it gets that &^% out of our air, water, water table .... and on and in the bodies of the men and women who grow and pick our food. Think how dangerous it is for them.

and to support small, local farms and small-scale growers who are some of the best stewards of our environment around.

There are "traditional farms" and even huge uber-mega agribusiness style farms that are excellent land stewards. There are small local farms that are not so good at that though most are better.

To make matters more complicated organic farmers are not necessarily small, though most are relatively smaller. And "traditional" non-organic farms not necessarily big or far away.

Whew. But the thing is small organic farms still don't have the kind of clout and money to fund studies like that article. Again, they do have us.

What's great about farmer's markets for those of us who have 'em is you may meet the farmer or at least someone who works for them.

If you've got questions about how they grow their stuff you can ask.

organic produce often tastes better because it's often not picked as early to be processed and shipped cross-country and has more time to ripen naturally in the field or on the vine.

The farmers in Chile, Italy and China are fine, they do a great job And if you're reading this in Italy, Chile or China you may feel the same about buying "local to me" Sonoma wine or goat cheeses.

But why use all that energy to fly or ship produce when we grow it here?

And .... by buying local wherever in the world you are you preserve rural agricultural regions that are GREAT to ride in

[Biciclista]

This reminds me of the other sensationalized article recently stating that organic produce is no more nutritious than non-organic produce. although that's 'debatable'- even if it were true and they were both equally 'nutritious' in terms of having the same nutrients- they are conveniently forgetting about the fact that organic produce is HEALTHIER to eat because it is not coated with pesticide residue.

I hate it when they do a little writer's 'twist' of the facts in order to get people to buy the publication.

a coworker of my husband who is seriously overweight and has sleep apnea (and falls asleep snoring loudly almost every day at work) made fun of my husband because we buy organic produce from a farmshare. "See, (because of the article) it's all BS about Organically grown produce"

[Trek420]

So the guy with sleep apnea and probably a slew of other health issues that may or may not be related to his being obese is teasing the fit and health conscious couple????

Coming to a theatre near you.

http://www.foodincmovie.com

[solveig]

I read the Time article last night, and it bothered me too. They are right that many people go overboard with their "compensation" for exercise with lots of heavy food. (Like my dad who rides his bike 7 miles to the tavern for a beer & a cheeseburger...)

But the article didn't really go into what kind of food people can eat when exercise amps up their metabolism, nor did it talk about eating frequently so that you never get ravenous enough to demolish 3 pieces of cake at night.

It was an article designed to provoke controversy, and I can't wait to see the letters next week, hopefully from some people with lots of letters behind their names.

I am completely confident that regular, varied, FUN exercise helped me drop and keep off the 65 lbs I lost, and more importantly, it helped me learn what my body needs and wants. And taught me I can do more than I think I can, and helped me stay sane, etc, etc.

[Crankin]

Exactly.
Thirty years ago, my dad told me that I was "getting a little piggish looking." Not nice, but true. Right then and there I stopped partying, going out to happy hour and eating fast food. I ate no red meat for 2 years and upped my fruit/veggie intake. I also started walking and doing calisthenics. I lost 25 pounds, even if it took me a year. I have never gained it back, except during pregnancy (each time it took me 4 months to lose the pregnancy weight) and the one time it started to come back is when I started cycling. My type of exercise may have changed, but even though I could not have done this without good nutrition, I most certainly could not have done it without exercise. I would have had to starve myself and I would have been one of those "skinny" girls with high body fat and no endurance.
I hope my friend who recently went to a trainer to "get rid of her bat wings" doesn't see this. She told me that she told the trainer she only wanted to work the one muscle that she thought was flabby (after the woman tried to explain about opposing muscle groups) and that she didn't "want to get muscles." I am tired of people telling me they can't do what I do. OK, but they can do something.

[witeowl]

It was an article designed to provoke controversy

Yup. Why give it a rational title like "Why Exercise Alone Won't Make You Thin"?

This article angered me on so many levels. The valid parts can be summed up as this: Be careful not to overeat as a reaction to hunger from exercise or because you think you "earned" it. Whether or not you exercise, you need to watch how much you eat. But that wouldn't have been much of an article, right?

I have a more complete reaction at my blog, if it's OK to say that.

[PscyclePath]

I get Time from some sort of promotion deal, and finally got around to reading this week's edition late last night. I thought the article was very poorly written... Their premise being that exersise alone induces one to eat more... and conveniently forgetting to mention that any sort of weight loss plan includes more exercise and less eating... Exercise + diet control.

But then their business is to sell advertising & magazines, not necessarily to give advice

[leathela]

I was really bothered by this article! I apologize if I'm reiterating what anyone else has already said on this thread, but I found the piece to be very one-sided and pessimistic. Yes, exercise alone may not be enough to achieve lasting weight loss, and you probably will gain weight if you run 3 miles and then proceed to eat a 500-calorie muffin from Starbucks (as noted in the article). The article rightly claims that people grossly overestimate the amount of calories burned during a typical workout. Not to sound elitist or judgmental, but this seems so intuitive to me: not breaking news, and not really worthy of TIME cover.

(I know that kind of does sound elitist and judgmental--I've always been active and interested in health and fitness, and I guess I sometimes forget that what seems obvious to me in this area isn't always obvious to others. That's my fault).

Anyway, the problem for me in this piece really rested in the notion that exercise is performed mainly at the gym--40 rote, tedious minutes on a stairclimber. Unless you truly love the gym (people do), I think that losing weight IS difficult because you lose motivation quickly. When you're exercising to meet a possibly unattainable goal - and not necessarily for the sake of your health or to improve your strength, flexibility, endurance, etc. - you can become easily discouraged when you don't see tangible progress within a certain amount of time. Then, people give up. In my opinion, the article fails to really consider the benefits of engaging in physical activity that you love, like cycling. When you're passionate about an activity, you don't conceive it purely as "exercise"...it's part of your daily routine, your life. I think weight loss/weight maintenance has *so* much to do with an inspired, empowered mindset. Activity shouldn't be viewed as drudgery. If the gym (or any other activity) is not appealing and doesn't leave you feeling strong and healthy, you owe it to yourself to find something that does. The TIME article really didn't address the sense of freedom and empowerment that comes with finding an activity that excites and challenges you, and I think it was remiss in leaving that very important aspect out. Also, when you find something you love to do and are apt to commit to, you will eventually find your ideal weight, on your own schedule.

[CyclingBeast]

Its all about getting a balance of energy intake and energy output. If you take in more than you burn, of course you're going to put on weight.

This article just annoyed me. I personally prefer the NewScientist - much more scientific and treats you as if you have actually had an education...

[katluvr]

[QUOTE=solveig;453216]... (Like my dad who rides his bike 7 miles to the tavern for a beer & a cheeseburger...) QUOTE]

I must admit I do try this sometimes...usually it is a bit longer than 7 miles
And just why doesn't this work? I REALLY wish it would!

[Mr. Bloom]

I'm a perfect example:
Last year, I rode 4,049.16 miles - 90 POUNDS OF CALORIC BURN.

I lost no weight...although I lost a lot the prior year.

I ride so I can eat.